CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-19-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

A group of landowners and governmental entities (appellants) sought to enjoin the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline owned by Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC, and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC. They appealed a district court's decision that sustained a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Railroad Commission and granted summary judgment to the Pipeline Entities. The appellants challenged the Commission's Rule 70 under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to establish pipeline routing standards and sought declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the APA claim improperly targeted the absence of a rule rather than its validity, and the UDJA claim lacked a viable legal theory. The court also rejected the appellants' constitutional arguments regarding due course of law, special privileges, and legislative delegation concerning the pipeline entities' eminent domain powers.

Eminent DomainNatural Gas PipelineTexas Railroad CommissionAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeSovereign ImmunityLegislative DelegationDue Course of LawSeparation of Powers
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The plaintiff, Samuel Cunningham, was discharged from the Erie Railroad Company in 1955. He had sued the Railroad and The United Railroad Workers of America, Inc., C.I.O., Local 1463, alleging discriminatory expulsion from the Union and wrongful discharge by the Railroad. After an initial dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, which was reversed by the Court of Appeals in 1959, the case was retried in 1965. The District Court found that the Union engaged in "hostile discrimination" against Cunningham regarding his dues payments, treating him differently from other members. Consequently, his discharge by the Railroad, based on the Union's request, was deemed unlawful under the Railway Labor Act and the Union Shop Agreement. The court granted judgment in favor of Cunningham against both defendants for $9,583 in damages, with the Union liable to indemnify the Railroad.

Railway Labor ActUnion Shop AgreementHostile DiscriminationWrongful DischargeDues PaymentSeniority RightsIndemnificationLabor LawFederal CourtDamages
References
1
Case No. 03-12-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This administrative appeal concerns the Railroad Commission of Texas's final order cancelling an extension of time for Roland Oil Company to plug inactive wells. The Commission found Roland lacked a good-faith claim to operate its lease due to a 15-month cessation of production. Roland argued that the cessation was excused by a force majeure event (a Commission severance order) and that its repair and testing activities constituted "Unit Operations" sufficient to maintain the lease. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's decision. The appellate court concluded that the force majeure clause in the Unit Agreement required events beyond Roland's reasonable control, which the severance order was not, as it resulted from Roland's own non-compliance. Additionally, the court found that "Unit Operations" specifically refers to activities contributing to the production of oil and gas, which Roland's work on inactive wells did not.

Oil and Gas LawAdministrative LawTexas Court of AppealsRailroad Commission of TexasInactive WellsPlugging RequirementsForce Majeure ClauseUnit AgreementContract InterpretationSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
34
Case No. 07-09-0343-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2011

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract dispute over water well operations on property owned by South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. (SPLR). The Kitten Family Living Trust (the Trust) had entered into both a Lease Agreement and a subsequent Easement Agreement with SPLR for drilling water wells. A dispute arose regarding the number of wells the Trust was permitted to operate and the duration of its rights, leading to the Trust suing SPLR for interference. The trial court ruled in favor of the Trust, granting a perpetual easement and attorneys' fees. On appeal, SPLR argued that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, specifically claiming that a broad-form question was defective for failing to incorporate legal theories and their elements. The appellate court agreed, finding the instruction improper and confusing, and also noted errors in not submitting instructions on an alleged oral agreement and conversion. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial due to these instructional errors.

Contract DisputeLease AgreementEasement AgreementWater RightsJury InstructionsAppellate ProcedureReversal and RemandOral ContractConversion ClaimStatute of Frauds
References
36
Case No. W2013-01605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2014

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Delores Blackmon sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging her husband's death from mesothelioma was caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing a prior release signed by Mr. Blackmon barred the current suit, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the boilerplate nature of the release and the lack of conclusive evidence that Mr. Blackmon understood the risk of mesothelioma at the time of signing made summary judgment inappropriate under the Wicker approach for FELA releases. The court emphasized the need to determine the parties' intent regarding known risks, not just known injuries.

FELAMesotheliomaAsbestosisRelease ValiditySummary JudgmentKnown Risk DoctrineKnown Injury DoctrineBoilerplate LanguageOccupational ExposureToxic Substances
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The plaintiff, Vann, was injured after slipping on ice at a Quality Inn in Maryland, where he was staying while on assignment for his employer, Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR). Reservations for Vann were made by General Motors (GM) personnel at the request of LIRR. Vann subsequently sued LIRR under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and Quality International (Quality) under a negligence theory. LIRR moved for summary judgment, arguing Quality was not acting as its agent. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted LIRR's motion and dismissed the complaint against it. The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that Quality was not performing 'operational activities' of LIRR as required to establish an agency relationship under FELA.

FELAFederal Employers' Liability ActRailroad liabilityAgency doctrineSummary judgmentNegligence actionPersonal injuryInterstate commerceOperational activitiesEmployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Theo Jennings, a trackman, sustained a disabling knee injury when a 'dry rotted' maul handle broke during spike driving. He sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence due to an unsafe workplace and equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Railroad. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that Jennings presented insufficient evidence of the Railroad's negligence. The court dismissed arguments regarding maul exposure and prior breakages as speculative and determined that using a maul was not inherently unsafe, thus not requiring the Railroad to provide automated alternatives.

Federal Employers Liability ActRailroad IndustryWorkplace SafetyDefective ToolsSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimDry RotMauls and SpikesEmployee InjuryEvidence Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. No. 20-0505
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

In this premises-defect case, Eagleridge Operating, LLC sought mandamus relief after a trial court struck its designation of Aruba Petroleum, Inc. as a responsible third party. Eagleridge contended that Aruba, a former wellsite owner-operator, held continuing responsibility for injuries from a burst gas pipeline under an independent contractor theory, despite having conveyed its ownership interest. The Supreme Court of Texas denied the petition, affirming the lower courts' decision that Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Jenkins was controlling. The Court reiterated that a property owner acts solely as an owner when improving its own property, and responsibility for premises defects generally transfers with the conveyance of ownership. The Court concluded that Aruba's compensation as operator of record did not transform its role from owner to independent contractor, and thus its responsibility terminated upon conveyance.

Premises liabilityMandamusResponsible third partyProperty ownershipOil and gas lawIndependent contractorOwner-operatorTexas Supreme CourtAppellate procedureCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
28
Case No. No. 16565
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Robert Lee Franks sued Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries sustained from a caboose derailment in 1961. A jury found the railroad negligent, exonerated Franks, and awarded $116,250 in damages. The railroad appealed on multiple grounds, including objections to medical testimony, the refusal to submit certain issues regarding employee status and rule violations, and claims of excessive damages. The appellate court systematically addressed and overruled all of the railroad's points, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict in favor of Franks.

Federal Employers' Liability ActPersonal InjuryRailroad AccidentCaboose DerailmentNegligencePost-Concussion SyndromeDamages AwardedAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony AdmissibilityExcessive Damages Claim
References
18
Case No. 02-21-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2022

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Greg Hanson, a roadmaster for Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company, appealed a summary judgment that denied his claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Hanson alleged that he sustained an injury after falling from a hi-rail truck, attributing the incident to exhaustion from excessive work hours. He argued that the Railroad negligently assigned him duties beyond his physical capacity, a condition he claimed the Railroad was aware of through his conversations with his supervisor the day prior to his injury. The Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas, at Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's summary judgment. The court found that Hanson's statements to his supervisor regarding long hours were not sufficient to reasonably infer that the Railroad had notice of his dangerous exhaustion. Furthermore, the court declined to impose a duty on the Railroad to monitor an experienced employee's fitness to work, emphasizing the employee's responsibility to report fatigue.

FELASummary JudgmentEmployee ExhaustionNegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of EmployerRailroad IndustryWork InjuryAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 2,047 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational